iProspect | November 2010

Real Branding Implications of Digital Media – an SEM, SEO, & Online Display Advertising Study

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com

Table of Contents 
Objective & Background Study Methodology Margins of Error Survey Questions Executive Summary Aggregate Findings, Analysis & Recommendations Unaided Brand Recall Aided Brand Recall Brand Favorability Likelihood to Visit Website Likelihood to Purchase Brand Trust Vertical Findings, Analysis & Recommendations Retail Industry Software Industry Banking/Financial Services Industry Hotel Industry Insurance Industry About comScore About iProspect About iProspect's Research ` 2 2 3 3 4 5- 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-15 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 1

Objective & Background 
In the spring of 2010, iProspect wanted to examine how mere impressions of various digital media assets – and combinations thereof – produced brand lift. To that end, the company commissioned comScore to develop and conduct research with the objective of uncovering the true effect of the digital media channels, and the effect of branding on customers’ purchase paths. The research spanned organic search impressions, paid search impressions, online display ad impressions, and all combinations thereof, across 15 brands within five vertical industries: retail, insurance, banking/financial services, software, and hotels. The research involved both real-time monitoring of Internet user behavior, as well as postbehavioral surveying of those users. Panelists were surveyed about the brands they had been exposed to via these various digital marketing assets. The findings, analysis, and implications of the research are detailed within this paper in aggregate and by vertical industry. These findings provide new insight on the value of search engine marketing and online display advertising as branding channels, and should assist marketers in planning their digital marketing initiatives cohesively and with the most positive success metrics.

Study Methodology
In February 2010, comScore began identifying study participants from within their online behavioral panel who were exposed to impressions of each of the digital asset types included in the study during their use of the Internet (organic search results, paid search results and online display ads) for each of 15 specific brands (three each from five different vertical industries). This qualifying process continued through May 2010, and produced 2,261 respondents. Ultimately, comScore assigned participants into one of seven experimental test groups (both those exposed to impressions of each of the three digital asset types, as well as those exposed to all possible combinations of those asset types). In addition, comScore created a control group of these same panelists who were not exposed to any of the digital assets for a particular brand. Starting on March 1, 2010, participants progressively qualified for each of the seven tests groups, as well as the control group, and were surveyed via email. All survey invitations were generated after 30 days of participants’ exposure to a specific digital asset or combination thereof. The survey questions sought to identify specific Internet user perceptions and their anticipated future behavior regarding the brands. Developed jointly by comScore and iProspect, the questions included in the study can be found on the next page. Surveying ceased on May 17, 2010. The aggregate and vertical-specific findings, as well as subsequent recommendations of this study, are a result of comparing the survey responses of those exposed to impressions of the digital assets/combinations of the individual brands to those who were not exposed to those brands. (Note that the terms impressions and search results are used interchangeably throughout the document.) The sample size is not statistically relevant to draw conclusions at the individual brand level, but is relevant to draw conclusions in most, but not all instances at the vertical industry level. The various margins of error are detailed on the next page at both a 90 percent and 95 percent confidence level. The five verticals included in the study represent a diverse cross-section of the online marketplace, but it should be noted that their performance – and the performance of 15 individual brands from which the verticals are constituted – does not necessarily reflect the performance of each of the digital asset types and combinations thereof across the entire online marketplace. Data are weighted to the U.S. online population on key demographic variables at the respondent level. Each control group is further weighted to match each exposed group to match demographic and brand distributions.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 2

Margins of Error 
 
Group Control Organic Search Impressions Paid Search Impressions Online Display Ad Impressions Organic + Paid Search Impressions Organic Search + Online Display Ad Impressions Paid Search + Online Display Ad Impressions Organic Search + Paid Search + Online Display Ad Impressions
* Aggregated brand level responses

Sample Size * 23,842 628 349 8,920 135 624 289 158

Margin of Error 90% C.I. +/- 0.53 +/- 3.27 +/- 4.39 +/- 0.87 +/- 7.06 +/- 3.28 +/- 4.82 +/- 6.52 95% C.I. +/- 0.63 +/- 3.91 +/- 5.25 +/- 1.04 +/- 8.43 +/- 3.92 +/- 5.76 +/- 7.80

 

Survey Questions
1. When thinking about (name of vertical category here), which brands come to mind? Answers establish unaided brand recall within each of the five vertical industry categories. 2. Have you heard of any of the following brands (15 listed)? Answers establish aided brand recall within each of the five vertical industry categories. 3. How would you describe your overall opinions of each of the following brands (from those identified by respondent in Question 2)? Answer on a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Very Unfavorable,” 4 being “Neutral” and 7 being “Very Favorable.” This establishes brand favorability. 4. In the future, how likely are you to visit the websites of each of the following brands (from those identified by respondent in Question 2)? Answer on a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Not Very Likely” 4 being “Neither Likely nor Unlikely” and 7 being “Very Likely.” This establishes likelihood to visit the brand website in the future. 5. In the future, how likely are you to purchase a product or service from each of the following brands (from those identified by respondent in Question 2)? Answer on a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Not Very Likely” 4 being “Neither Likely nor Unlikely” and 7 being “Very Likely.” This establishes likelihood to purchase from the brand in the future. 6. How would you describe the amount of trust you have in each of the following brands (from those identified by respondent in Question 2)? Answer on a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Very Low Trust,” 4 being “Neutral” and 7 being “Very High Trust.” This establishes amount of trust in the brand.
Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 3

Executive Summary
The key finding of this study is that online digital media assets have considerable branding influence, and that specific combinations can significantly impact a brand’s success. In fact, Internet users exposed to mere impressions of organic search results, paid search results, and online display advertising -- and all combinations thereof -- experience both measureable improvements in their perceptions of those brands, as well as their anticipated interactions with them. In short, this study proves that digital media assets have the power to affect brand equity whether Internet users click on them or not. This finding has huge implications for companies that currently assess the value of their search engine marketing and online display advertising campaigns solely on their ability to produce ROIbased conversions – be they direct sales transactions, sales leads, etc. In fact, this study shows that search marketing and online display can now be viewed as viable branding channels worthy of their fair share of branding budgets, and requiring development of means by which to measure their impact on brand equity. The specific assets that generate brand lift differ by vertical industry and from brand to brand based on the strategy being employed by each brand. However, the overall trend is clear: mere impressions of digital media assets do indeed affect branding. Below are the key findings that demonstrate the relationship between the digital assets examined in this study and brand lift.

Paid search result impressions have the greatest impact on brand lift, both in isolation and in combination with other digital assets.   In aggregate, paid search results generate 44 percent lift in likelihood to purchase. Within the retail vertical, paid search impressions create a 54 percent lift in likelihood to purchase.

The combination of paid + organic search impressions produce the strongest brand lift across most of the brand metrics measured.   In aggregate, paid search results + organic search results net a 73 percent lift in likelihood to purchase. Within the hotel vertical, paid + organic search impressions create a 147 percent lift in likelihood to purchase.

Online display advertising is also effective at producing brand lift, but makes its strongest contribution when used in combination with search engine results. This combination produced a surprisingly high brand lift across many of the verticals studied.   In aggregate, organic search results + display ad impressions net a 16 percent increase in likelihood to purchase. Within the banking/financial vertical, organic search results + display ad impressions create a 64 percent lift in likelihood to purchase.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 4

Aggregate Findings, Analysis & Recommendations
Internet users asked:

1. 

“When thinking about (name of vertical category here), which brands come to mind?” (Asked for each of the five vertical categories.)

The aggregate results are as follows:

Figure 1:  Exposure to combinations of two digital assets yields an increase in  unaided brand recall (15­35%). 

Analysis When it comes to producing increases in unaided brand recall, it’s clear that exposure to combinations of two digital assets is more impactful than exposure to those assets in isolation. The combinations of both organic search results + display ads, as well as paid search results + display ads, generate a 15 percent lift. The combination of organic search results + paid search results produces a 35 percent increase.

Recommendations Marketers hoping to achieve brand lift of this type are advised to utilize two or more of the following channels to net an impact: organic search marketing, paid search marketing, and online display advertising. These results confirm that testing is key. As all brands and their customers are unique, you must test all three in order to determine the perfect combination for your brand.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 5

Internet users were asked:

2. 

“Have you heard of any of the following brands?” (15 brands were listed.)

The aggregate results are as follows:

Figure  2:   Only  exposure  to paid  search  impressions generates  a lift  in  aided  brand recall (6%).  

Analysis Aided brand recall tells a much different story than unaided brand recall. Here, only impressions of paid search results generate a modest six percent increase. So what could be behind the lackluster performance of this metric? The brands included in the study may very well have been a factor. Though they cannot be disclosed, all of the brands are large, many are leaders in their industries, and most could be considered household names. Therefore, it is not surprising that 78-90 percent of respondents answered this question in the affirmative. This left very little room for a lift to be achieved. Had lesser-known brands been included in the survey, it is possible that more significant increases in brand lift could have been recognized.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 6

Internet users were asked:

3. 

“How would you describe your overall opinions of each of the following brands?” (Asked about those brands identified by respondent in Question 2 using a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Very Unfavorable,” 4 being “Neutral” and 7 being “Very Favorable.”)

The aggregate results are as follows:

Figure 3:  Brand favorability experienced a lift of 11­40 percent from paid  search alone and when combined with other digital media assets. 

Analysis Regarding brand favorability, exposure to impressions of each of the three digital asset types alone generates lift, with paid search results producing the greatest increase (28%). But the combinations of paid search results + display ads (11%) and especially organic search results + paid search results (40%) also produce meaningful lifts. Note that this is the second brand metric (see Question 1 regarding unaided brand recall) where the combination of paid + organic search results generates the highest lift.

Recommendations Impressions of paid + organic search results, as well as online display ads – individually and in some combinations – produce lifts in brand favorability. Given that, marketers need to assess the value of their search marketing and online display advertising campaigns not only on the conversions and ROI they generate, but also on the increase in brand favorability they produce. Marketers should understand that these channels can be used for brand building. They should test to learn the impact that each has on their specific brand, and then devote branding budget dollars to these channels accordingly.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 7

Internet users were asked:

4. 

“In the future, how likely are you to visit the websites of each of the following brands?” (Asked about those brands identified by respondent in Question 2 using a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Not Very Likely” 4 being “Neither Likely Nor Unlikely” and 7 being “Very Likely.”)

The aggregate results are as follows:

Figure 4:  Exposure to paid + organic search results almost doubled Internet  users’ likelihood to visit a brand’s website in the future (95%). 

Analysis Similar to the lifts generated in brand favorability, increases in the probability of visiting a brand’s website are driven by impressions of all the digital asset types individually, as well as by most of the combinations. As with unaided brand recall and brand favorability, paid search impressions produce the highest lift (53%) of the individual assets. Similarly, the combination of paid search results + organic search results produces the highest overall lift (95%). And while not the biggest increase -- but perhaps the most unique -- organic search + display produced a strong lift of 32 percent. A trend is clearly developing regarding the assets whose impressions produce the most significant lifts.

Recommendations The likelihood of an Internet user to visit a brand’s website in the future – regardless of whether they have visited it in the past or not – can be viewed as a proxy for both brand favorability (see Question 3), and for likelihood to purchase (see Question 5). So, it is not surprising that the assets and combinations that generate the highest lift in brand favorability have a similar impact on this way of looking at brand lift. As such, marketers are advised to utilize these assets to produce brand lift in addition to conversions, and to put systems in place to measure that lift.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 8

Internet users were asked:

5. 

“In the future, how likely are you to purchase a product or service from each of the following brands?” (Asked about those brands identified by respondent in Question 2 using a 1-7 scale with 1 being “Not Very Likely” 4 being “Neither Likely Nor Unlikely” and 7 being “Very Likely.”)

The aggregate results are as follows:

Figure 5:  Exposure to combinations of two digital media assets considerably  improves likelihood to purchase (16­73%), versus exposure to one asset type  (5­44%). 

Analysis Arguably the most important metric associated with brand equity, the likelihood to purchase is most impacted by impressions of the same digital assets and combinations that created the greatest increases in brand favorability and likelihood to visit a brand’s website. AIl but one of the asset types and combinations net a lift in the likelihood to buy, several in excess of 20 percent. Once again, paid search impressions (44%) are the most impactful individual asset type, and organic search results + paid search results (73%) is the most effective combination. Organic search + display showed a 16 percent lift -- which is higher than most would have projected, considering that the two asset types are not often planned cohesively.

Recommendations Once again, the findings indicate that interactive and brand marketers should capitalize on the power of these digital assets to influence brand. In short, they should utilize search engine marketing and online display advertising as branding channels. However, they must also institute systems and processes to establish a baseline of branding metrics. Doing so will enable them to measure the impact of these channels on brand equity over time. Marketers may want to try the following: real-time on-site surveys, period post-visit surveys, increases in direct navigation to the brand’s website, or increases in branded searches.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 9

Internet u users were asked: a

6.  6

Internet u users were asked: a “How would you describe the amount of trust you ha in each o the following brands?” w e ave of ” (Ask about tho brands identified by respondent in Question 2 using a 1-7 scale with ked ose 1 being “Very Lo Trust,” 4 b ow being “Neutr ral” and 7 be eing “Very Hi Trust.”) igh

The aggr regate results are as follo s ows:

Figure 6 6:  Exposu ure to the c  combinati ion of orga anic and p paid search h enhance es  brand t trust by 50 0 percent.   

 
Analysis When it co omes to the amount of trus that a st Internet users have in brands, we once again see the la argest lift by a single digital asset type l coming fro paid searc impression (22%), om ch ns and the la argest overall lift coming fro the om combination of organic search resul + paid c lt search res impressio (50%). Th sult ons hough there are fewer assets/comb binations that produce lifts for this pa articular metric – and only o that c one includes d display ads – the top-level findings support th hose recogniz in unaided brand zed d recall, bra favorabilit likelihood t visit the and ty, to website, a likelihood to purchase. It should and d . also be no oted that acro all these b oss brand metrics, th number of impressions of online he f display ad required to generate lift is an order ds o of magnitu greater th any of the other asset ude han e types/com mbinations. Reco ommendatio ons As w review the final brand equity metric o the we of study, the aggreg gate trend is v very clear: me ere ressions of the digital asse examined have e ets impr the p power to affec brand. And equally clear is ct r the r recommended course of ac d ction for mark keters. They s should strive to combine p paid sear and organ search, as the duo prod rch nic s duces the h highest lift in f five of the six brand metric cs used in this study Marketers s d y. should also b be mind that in ord to achieve a lift with on dful der e nline displ ad impres lay ssions that is similar to that t prod duced by sear result imp rch pressions, they will need to use a mu greater ab d uch bundance of displ advertising. lay

Copyright © 20 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.11 010 152 | interest@ipr rospect.com | www w.iprospect.com | 10

Vertical Industry Findings, Analysis & Recommendations 

Retail 
Unaided Brand Recall: In the retail vertical, impressions of online display ads produce the greatest lift in unaided brand awareness (40%) with a smaller lift being generated by other individual asset types. This finding is not surprising given the prevalence of online display in the retail vertical (compared to other verticals). Brand Favorability: The retail vertical demonstrates the same trend established within the aggregate findings: paid search impressions have the power to provide a significant lift in brand favorability (35%) on their own. However, the combination of organic + paid search result impressions that provides the highest degree of lift at the aggregate level did not produce a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion for this vertical. Likelihood to Visit Website: When it comes to the likelihood to visit a retail brand’s website, impressions of paid search results produce the greatest lift (75%). Online display ad impressions follow with 58 percent. It is interesting to note that online display contributes more than five times the brand lift within the retail vertical than it does within the aggregate findings (11%). Likelihood to Purchase: Once again, paid search impressions (54%) and online display ad impressions (33%) are the assets that generate the greatest lifts in this important brand metric. It is interesting to note that online display ads produce almost seven times the brand lift within this vertical than they do across all the verticals considered within the study (5%). Brand Trust: No real lifts in retail brand trust are generated by any digital asset types.

Analysis & Recommendations: In the consumer-driven retail category -- where trust is built online, offline, and even through social media and viral efforts – marketers should take note of how these digital assets shift the purchase path. By utilizing organic + paid search to increase favorability of the brand, and display media to encourage consumers to visit their website, retail marketers should test and find the unique combination of assets to produce the greatest lift.

“Online display contributes  more than five times the brand  lift in the likelihood to visit a  website for the retail vertical  than it does within the  aggregate findings.” 

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 11

Software 
Unaided Brand Recall: Unlike the aggregate findings, a lift in unaided brand recall is only produced by impressions of one combination of digital assets: organic search results + paid search results + online display ad results (14%). Furthermore, this vertical is the only one in which this combination of all three asset types produces a lift. Brand Favorability: Also unlike the aggregate findings, there is no lift in software brand favorability generated by any of the digital asset types or combinations. Likelihood to Visit Website: The combination of organic search results + paid search results nets the greatest lift (58%) in the likelihood to visit a software brand’s website. However, organic search impressions alone net a lift of 37 percent within this vertical. In the aggregate results, paid search impressions net the greatest lift from any individual asset type (53%), while the combination of organic and paid produces a lift of 95 percent. Likelihood to Purchase: Much like its ability to affect the likelihood to visit a website, impressions of organic search results are also effective at producing a lift in likelihood to purchase a software product (30%). In fact, it is the only asset type to do so for this vertical. Brand Trust: Following suit with the likelihood to purchase metric, organic search impressions are the only digital asset that produces a lift (14%) in brand trust among Internet users within the software vertical in this study. Analysis & Recommendations: Organic search must be a cornerstone for software marketers. It is not surprising that there was no lift in brand favorability within this category since businesses, rather than consumers, are the key drivers of investments in the three brands included. As a result, much of the purchasing of these brands is done through other lead generation channels. That said, it is logical that organic search – still viewed as the most unbiased form of online content – is used to evaluate products in a BtoB environment. Considering the power organic search impressions have to boost brand equity, software marketers should place extra emphasis on their organic search engine optimization campaigns alongside their paid channels. Doing so will help them achieve the greatest brand lift.

“Organic  search  nets  the  greatest  lift  in  likelihood  to  visit  a  website  (37%)  and  likelihood  to  purchase  a  software product (30%).”  

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 12

Banking/Financial Services 
Unaided Brand Recall: Online display ad impressions are the only digital asset that generates a lift in unaided brand recall within the banking/financial services vertical. What’s more, they do so at a robust clip of 100 percent. Brand Favorability: Analysis & Recommendations: There is no lift in banking/financial services brand favorability caused by exposure to any digital asset type or combination examined in this study. Likelihood to Visit Website: In the case of likelihood to visit a banking/financial services website, organic search impressions (113%), as well as the combination of organic search results + online display impressions (67%), produce the only lifts. This differs from the aggregate results which found that paid search impressions played a larger role in brand lift. Likelihood to Purchase: The combination of organic search results + online display ads nets the only lift (64%) within this metric. The combination’s performance here is four times the lift it generated within the aggregate results. Banking and financial services are needs-based. Consumers don’t often change services once they have initially selected a brand unless a significant incentive or motivation exists. Given that, marketers must ensure that their brands are top of mind when consumers are in the mindset to change. Marketers within the banking/financial services industry are encouraged to both create a seamless brand presence between traditional and digital channels, as well as to integrate their use of organic search engine optimization and online display advertising to net the greatest brand lift online. Brand Trust: As with the likelihood to purchase, the greatest lift in the amount of trust that Internet users place in banking/financial service brands is produced by the combination of organic search impressions + online display ad impressions (44%).

“The combination of organic search impressions and  online display ad impressions creates a lift of 64  percent in likelihood to purchase banking or  financial services.” 

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 13

Hotels 
Unaided Brand Recall: In the hotel vertical, various combinations of digital assets produce significant lifts in unaided recall: organic search impressions + paid search impressions (67%), organic + display ad impressions (96%), and organic + display + paid search impressions (48%). The lifts these combinations produce within this vertical far exceed their yield at the aggregate level. Brand Favorability: Lifts in hotel brand favorability are similar to those within the aggregate results: paid (47%) and paid + organic (56%). Of special note, the combination of organic search impressions + display ad impressions generates a lift of 33 percent for hotel brands. This is three times what it produces at the aggregate level (11%). Likelihood to Visit Website: Several assets/combinations generate significantly greater brand lift for this metric than within the aggregate results. These include paid search impressions (100%), organic + paid search results (163%), organic search + display ad impressions (107%), and paid search results + display ad impressions (71%). Likelihood to Purchase: For this metric within the hotel vertical, the findings show several assets/combinations that generate considerably greater lift than those same assets do within the aggregate results. Paid search impressions (78%), organic + paid search impressions (147%), and paid search results + online display ad impressions (61%) all contribute sizeable lifts. In addition, the combination of organic search results + display ad impressions (144%) produces a lift that is nine times what it generates in the aggregate results. Brand Trust: The hotel vertical results are similar to the aggregate results as they pertain to the amount of trust placed in brands. The combination of organic search results + paid search results generates a lift of (83%). Analysis & Recommendations: This is a “highly-perishable” vertical. Limitedtime deals and real-time reviews play a large role in the purchase decision, and these offers are typically found through user search activity. But images – photos of destinations, rooms, etc. – also play a significant role, and these are best conveyed through display ads. So it’s not surprising that hotel brand lift was created through most of the digital assets types and combinations researched. Therefore, hotel marketers are advised to keep a branding mindset throughout their digital planning. They are also encouraged to participate in both paid and organic search engine marketing, as well as online display advertising. By focusing on them each individually, as well as on their integration, marketers within this vertical will be able to capitalize on the innate power of these channels to boost brand equity.

“The combination of organic  and paid search impressions  generates a 147 percent lift in  the likelihood to buy hotel  services.” 

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 14

Insurance 
Unaided Brand Recall: Unaided recall for insurance brands is only produced by organic search impressions + display ad impressions (46%) – a much higher rate than this combination produces in aggregate. Brand Favorability: Only online display advertising impressions (12%) produce a lift in insurance brand favorability – and a very modest one at that. Likelihood to Visit Website: Organic search results (171%), as well as organic search results + display ad impressions (129%) produce lifts in the likelihood to visit an insurance brand’s website that are significantly greater than those assets produced in aggregate. Likelihood to Purchase: Only organic search results (150%) produce a lift in the likelihood to purchase insurance services, also at a much higher rate than this digital asset produces across the results in aggregate. Brand Trust: Within the brand trust metric of the insurance vertical, organic search impressions produce a 62 percent lift. In addition, the combination of organic search impressions + online display ad impressions nets an increase in brand trust of 50 percent. Overall, the brand lift performance of these digital asset/combinations is greater for insurance brands than in the aggregate results. Analysis & Recommendations: This is a vertical in which options, benefits, and costs are highly researched by consumers. So it is once again not surprising that the more trusted organic search results are more effective at generating brand lift. As with financial services, traditional media plays a significant role in establishing brand favorability within this vertical. Marketers are advised to use the combination of organic search engine marketing and online display advertising to generate the best brand lifts within the insurance vertical.

        “Organic search impressions produce a 150 percent lift  in likelihood to purchase insurance services.”     
Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 15

About comScore 
comScore, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCOR) is a global leader in measuring the digital world and a preferred source of digital marketing intelligence. comScore helps its clients better understand, leverage and profit from the rapidly evolving digital marketing landscape by providing solutions in the measurement and evaluation of online audiences, advertising effectiveness, social media, search, video, mobile, e-commerce, and a broad variety of other emerging forms of digital behavior. For more information, please visit www.comScore.com.

About iProspect  
Founded in 1996, iProspect is the Original® Search Engine Marketing Firm. We help many of the world’s most successful brands improve their online sales and marketing return on investment through a variety of performance marketing services, including natural search engine optimization, paid search advertising management, online display advertising management, shopping feed management, global search engine marketing, reputation management, and other related services. Proper attribution requires that any references to this study be clearly identified as coming from the “iProspect Real Branding Implications of Digital Media - an SEM, SEO & Online Display Advertising Study.” With U.S. offices in Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Dallas Fort-Worth, as well as offices across the globe, iProspect can be contacted at 1.800.522.1152, or by visiting www.iprospect.com. Questions regarding this study should be directed to iProspect Director of Communications, Colleen Reed, at 1.800.522.1152 or colleen.reed@iprospect.com.

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 16

About iProspect’s Research
iProspect has a long legacy of research and thought leadership in the digital marketing industry. Findings from iProspect research are regularly used to enhance our service offerings and to educate clients on digital marketing best practices and industry trends. iProspect studies are frequently quoted by speakers at marketing industry events, and by both business and trade press:

iProspect’s The Value of Retail Search and Position Study in July 2010 iProspect’s Search Engine Marketing and Online Display Advertising Integration Study in May 2009

iProspect’s Search Engine Marketing Integration Study in August 2008 iProspect’s Blended Search Results Study in April 2008 iProspect's Offline Channel Influence on Online Search Behavior Study in August 2007 iProspect's Search Marketer Measurement & Performance Study in June 2007 iProspect's Search Marketer Social Networking Study in May 2007 iProspect's Social Networking User Behavior Study in April 2007 iProspect's Search Engine User Behavior Study in April 2006 iProspect's Natural SEO Outsourcing Study in August 2005 iProspect's SEO Metrics & ROI Study in August 2005 iProspect's Search Engine Marketer Performance Study in August 2005 iProspect's Natural SEO Keyword Length Study in November 2004 iProspect's Search Engine User Attitudes Study in April 2004

Copyright © 2010 iProspect.com, Inc. | 800.522.1152 | interest@iprospect.com | www.iprospect.com | 17

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.